From: skutvik@online.no
Date: Thu Dec 18 2003 - 04:04:46 GMT
Matt and All
17 Dec. MATTHEW PAUL KUNDERT wrote:
> > Paul, Wim, Steve, Bo,
> > Everybody pretty much knows how I feel about this whole thing,
> > versions of the MoQ and such. I read something by Rorty, though,
> > that kinda' captures the whole thing for me. In a response to an
> > article by Jacques Bouveresse, Rorty begins talking about his
> > relation to Derrida. Everyone should be able to see the connection:
> > Let me conclude this section of my response by saying something more
> > about the particular case of Derrida. As Bouveresse notes, Derrida
> > has not said what he thinks of my attempt to read him as one reads
> > Proust. It is quite possible, even likely, that he hates it.
> > However this may be, I entirely agree with Bouveresse that Freud
> > _would_ hate to be read as I read him -- with no attention to his
> > pretensions to "science," and thus little interest in, for example,
> > Grunbaum's criticisms of him. But even if Derrida's attitude is
> > "God save me from 'friends' like Rorty," my admiration and respect
> > for him would probably not deter me from continuing to read him, and
> > to write about him in much the same vein. I find much (though not
> > everything) that Derrida writes engrossing and exciting, as I do
> > much (though not everything) that Freud wrote. As with Freud, I use
> > Derrida's writings as grist
> > Reading authors against their own expectations, against the grain of
> > their intentions, is often a profitable exercise, no matter how
> > annoyed the authors get at finding themselves so read.
Maybe you intend it as some support, but I much prefer
accusations of having distorted Pirsig's MOQ, these I may refute,
while the Rortyan approach is completely sterile. I still uphold that
there is a conclusion from the original Phaedrus' ideas that the
author of ZMM did not care/dare draw/invoke. This point is neither
affirmed nor denied in LILA, because the intellectual level isn't
defined, but actually distorted by some annotations in LC.
What I am talking about is the initial insight, namely that
INTELLECT is where Quality creates subjects and objects! This is
the most pregnant part of the ZMM where he has the SOM by its
jugular vein. The levels weren't made up at that stage, but in the
MOQ proper intellect becomes the VALUE of the S/O distinction.
Any attempt to change intellect into anything else brings the SOM
back and destroys the MOQ. Thus I don't read Pirsig against
himself, on the contrary, I try to save his initial insight.
Thanks Matt, but no thanks.
Bo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 18 2003 - 19:09:23 GMT